You Need Sex

When I first got laid in 1985, I went to the bathroom, toweled off the equipment and walked down to 7-11 for a big gulp. No blue birds landed on my shoulder to whistle Disney songs and no ray of sunlight broke through the clouds to shine on me. Nor did I think “damn, that was terrible, I’ve lost all respect for myself, I’ll never be the same again,…sob!”, it felt pretty good. The traffic lights still worked, the busses ran on time (sorta) and food still tasted good.

I’ve had sex with over 40 women since then. I got laid first when I was 17 and on average I’ve been having sex with my wife 2-3 times a week (and a hummer on her off weeks) for coming up on 17 years now. Sex is a great part of life, sometimes it’s memorable, sometimes it’s taking care of myself, but it’s never been some epic experience of cosmic importance. It keeps you healthy in body, mind and spirit, and the best I can describe sex is that it’s an important part of a balanced life experience. People have been fucking a lot longer than anyone’s had time to contemplate the esoteric significance of sex.

I can remember listening to an episode of the Tom Leykis show when he was on terrestrial radio, and he described what sex is like for men. He said, sex is like taking a piss for a guy – sooner or later he’s got to take care of himself and let loose. Now, most guys would prefer to take a piss in a nice clean bathroom, where the towels smell good and he can feel comfortable and unhurried. Sure, he’d love to have the occasion to take a piss in the bathroom of a four star hotel with gold plated faucets and all the trimmings, but when he really has to go, he’ll stop along the side of the road or take a piss at a dirty gas station urinal. Sooner or later he’s gonna have to go.

What prompted today’s post was my reading a recent blog entry of a notable christo-manosphere commenter. I’m not going to name him since I think most of the readers who frequent Rational Male from Dalrock or Sunshinemary’s blogs already know who I’m referencing. What’s important is his life’s plight. The nuts and bolts of his post was his lament in finding a suitable, monogamous mate to marry, have sex with and (presumedly) have a life and children with.

It’s not too tall an order for even the most abject Beta of men. To be sure, nowadays it increasingly requires a good amount of self-delusion and / or faith for a guy to consider monogamy, and red pill disillusionment can help or aggravate, but statistically more people are engaging in monogamy than not at some stage of their lives. However, this blogger feels doomed and relegated to what I can only assume is a self-inflicted life of celibacy due to his religious convictions and his inability to connect with the properly prescribed virgin bride who fits his ideal.

Now before I dive too far in here, I’m not going to debate the merits or limitations of this guy’s conviction. Before I started considering this post I realized I’ll be run up the moralist flagpole for even using his predicament as my example, but what I’m going to focus on is the need men (and by association women) have for sex. Try to keep this in mind.

Big Heads and Little Heads

One very common dismissal of red pill awareness I read from blue pill men is this feigned, blasé indifference to sex.

“All that Red Pill, PUA shit is for guy’s who obsess over sex. They only go to the lengths they do to get laid and never see the bigger picture. You don’t need sex you know, you wont die from not getting laid.”

For the most part this pseudo-indifference is really a feminized, conditioned, response couched in Beta Game. The idea, of course, is for the blue pill guy to promote the public perception that he’s above his sexual impulses in the hopes that any girl within earshot (or reading his comments online) will recognize his uniqueness in not letting his cock do his thinking for him. From a male deductive logic standpoint it makes sense to the feminized male – women have all told him how put off they are with guys who only think about sex, so he’ll identify with the women he’d like to get with and “not be like other guys.”

Boys subscribing to this identification usually find themselves sexually frustrated by the very women they hope to connect with in their sexual indifference because, on a core level, women are psychologically insulted by men who actively desexualize themselves in order to get with them. Despite every verbal protestation women can muster, women are aroused by, and ego-affirmed by, Men who unashamedly display the covert social cues of wanting to fuck them.

Thats the Beta Game behind the “you don’t need sex” Buffer, but there’s more too this rationale than that. Technically the Beta reasoning is correct; physically, you’re not going to die if you don’t get laid. You could probably masturbate to relieve yourself or live a sexless existence due to a physical disability and live a productive life as satisfying as you can manage it. If you don’t know what you’re missing or if a sexual substitute does the job, what’s the difference, right? The line of reasoning is that if it isn’t food, water or oxygen it isn’t really a necessity for existence.

From an absolutist perspective it’s one of those conveniently unassailable positions that excuse a guy’s inability to get laid – “no one really needs sex, and if you think you do you’re obviously preoccupied with it and letting your little head do the thinking for you.” By this line of reasoning, basic necessities like clothing and shelter could be considered superfluous needs for living, but since it’s sex, and in most respects hedonistically enjoyable, special consideration has to be given.

The unhealthy disconnect here is that human beings do in fact need sex. We can attach other ephemeral aspects to the sex act (or masturbation if that’s the only recourse), like love, emotion, commitment, etc., but on a base level your body needs sexual release in one form or another. Yes, you can willfully override the need, just like you can overcome hunger while you’re fasting or on a hunger strike, but the need is still the operative in that act of will. Once hunger, breathing and thirst are satisfied, sex is the single most influential drive the human species (really, most any species) is motivated by. Society is driven by sex, cultures evolve around it and personal achievements, as well as horrible atrocities are the result of our inborn prompt to satisfy our sexual urges.

Sigmund Freud once said, “all energy is sexual”, meaning that subliminally we will redirect our motivation for ungratified sexual impulse to other endeavors. Thus it’s men, being the sex with the highest amount of libido inducing testosterone, who must look for far more outlets to transfer this motivation to than women. So is it any real surprise that it’s historically been Men who’ve primarily been the empire builders, the conquerors, the creators, and destroyers who’ve (for better or worse) moved humanity the most significantly?

Life Experience

If I said I felt pity for men like the blogger I mentioned earlier, who through their own conviction or bad circumstance, have never had sex in their lives, I don’t think I’d be accurate in expressing myself. I feel a profound sadness for them; a sadness similar to when you meet someone who’s lost a limb or has had to live with a physical or mental disability. For guys who want to tell you that you don’t need sex to live a fulfilling life I’m sure this sounds like conceit. There are plenty of inspirational individuals who live their lives without arms or legs, or with other disabilities, that we can all look up to for “overcoming the odds”, but the reason they are inspiring is because they must strive for a quality of life that others simply take for granted. Run a marathon and it’s quite an achievement, but do it as a paraplegic and it’s a triumph of human will.

Sometimes a sexless life is a choice of conviction, but more often it’s not a choice for men, it’s simply their circumstance. I grieve every time I read a comment by, or receive a painful request for help from a late 30’s man who’s still a virgin. Sex is a part of a healthy human experience; if you want to apply meaning to it, if you only consider its legitimacy within marriage or monogamy, or if you enjoy sex with many women, the function is still the same.

I felt this way after I read the aforementioned blogger relating his frustration about his not being able to find an appropriate woman to wife under today’s social climate. This post isn’t an attempt to convince him to adjust his expectations; I can’t necessarily empathize with his convictions or his reasonings (I’ve always enjoyed sex, and never felt guilt for enjoying it), however, I can empathize with his deep desire to become intimate and sexual with a woman. This healthy human experience is denied to him by conviction, but it doesn’t alleviate his desire for it.

Without knowing the individual for certain I’d have a hard time guessing what his beliefs are, but most Christians would agree with your last line; that men need sex. That sex is necessary, healthy, and even holy.

They just also believe that having sex outside of a marriage is sinful and will harm someone’s life in multiple ways.

To me, the hard part is determining whether it is a problem of the man or the selection of women. If he doesn’t know for certain he can kindle attraction in ANY woman, how does he know he’ll light the burning passion for one that matches his criteria?

I’m not saying he should resort to breaking his own moral beliefs, I just want to point out that anyone caught up on an idea that they ‘deserve’ or are holding out to marry a woman of a certain caliber should consider a few things. FYI, this applies to anyone not scoring the quality of woman they want, not just people following religious beliefs.

They need to constantly evaluate their game, sexual market worth, and marriage market worth to determine if it is a problem with themselves, or a problem with what type of women they’re surrounding themselves with.

The reddest pill? What is that supposed to mean? Celibate MGTOWs are just the bottom of the totem pole, the equivalent of truly unfortunately ugly women who turn to Star Trek, handicrafts or feminism and try to claim that they have rejected men rather than having been rejected by them.

I think most of Christianity’s history would agree with you that sex is a bodily or worldly need, and paradoxically because they agree with that, thinks that it should be secondary in the Christian’s life, to be overcome by the human will which is locus of the Christian’s life.

Contemporary Christianity which seeks to “over-spiritualise” sex, that is, give it all kinds of existential and romantic meaning can be said to be the aberration of the Christian tradition. Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” which is today virtually the sex manual of Catholics would have been roundly rejected by virtually every major Catholic and patristic Father with very few exceptions.

But for most of Christendom, sex has always been seen to be a “this-worldly” thing subordinate to “next-worldly” concerns, this is particularly exemplified in the way Western Christians understood marriages to terminate at death, thus, sex and the marital relation would cease to be in eternity.

If Protestantism has a slightly more positive attitude towards sex and marriage, that is only because Protestantism has a slightly higher view of “this-worldly” civic affairs and enterprises, but that didn’t change the essential structure of most of Western Christendom, the division between this-worldliness, which is where sex and marriage is located, and the next-worldly spiritual concerns.

This can be particularly seen in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer which remains the standard marital liturgy for most of the Anglophone world for most of history until the 20th century. The liturgy for “The Solemnization of Matrimony” is quite explicit in considering the reasons for marriage, said with regards to sex,

It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

Thus, to put it bluntly, it is as you say, that marriage exists to satisfy a worldly sexual need, for the sake of remaining pure and holy, and for keeping one’s conscience clean before God, etc. The idea of a sexual act plus all the romantic connotations, while not necessarily wrong according to the Christian faith, is not the primary concern of the Christian marriage, which exists simply to satisfy a need. Even the BCP addition of the third reason of marriage,

It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

This is a Protestant innovation, you will not find this anywhere in any of the earlier marriage liturgies which states as the reason of marriage only procreation and avoiding fornication. Thus, while Protestantism did have a slightly more “romantic” view of marriage as that of friendship and help, but with regards to sex, they still viewed it as a means to control and regulate a primal need, etc.

So in some worldly sense, we can view the inability for contemporary Christians to marry because of circumstance to be tragic, a loss of something precious and valuable in this life, etc, just as we would view as tragic and a loss someone who has died early, has been disabled, been crushed with poverty and misery, as you pointed out. But from the perspective of faith, Christians do ultimately see that these worldly troubles and losses are not compared to the glory which awaits them at the resurrection whereby these “worldly concerns” will pale in comparison, etc.

Hi let me say my piece – from an older guy (who has been around the block) point of view.
I am 55 years old and was married for 23 years, to a virgin bride. Sex was very important and resulted in the birth of two beautiful children – after which I had the snip done.
I enjoyed sex with my wife …… but so did other guys – which resulted in the divorce when she decided to cash in. I knew that she was cheating on me, so I resorted to having a different prostitute every month during our last year of marriage. Being a Christian did not save this marriage
I have been divorced for 5 years and did meet another person, with whom I thought I could spend the rest of my life with.
By this time, thanks to the internet, I had learned game. We were going to get married and saw each other during the weekends for three years.
I enjoyed sex with my betrothed …… but so did other guys. Being a supposed Christian did not stop her having an affair with a married man.
Now, I am single again and have taken the bitter red pill. I live on a remote farm, but when I am in the City. I enjoy having sex with a different woman every time – either a prostitute or a f*ck buddy.
I have been burnt – badly, and have no wish to get married again. Why should I – just for mere sex?
The most important gift I have, from my wife, are our two children.
Marry, yes to have children, but keep her on a tight rein AND learn GAME!!

He, and pretty much all males need sex. Period. I’m sure this is theologically allover the map, but the following is how I feel about my experience with the moral code I tried my best to uphold to be Holy in the eyes of God, but in the end it was a lie that God had to decimate with the Red Pill.

Before I married I suffered in Celibacy for many more years than my peers (and two preachers daughters), and even after I got laid I still felt this moral guilt for my “fornication”, though all the women I was meeting after college in Church were single moms, recent divorcees, or unattractive frumps. Basically fornicators and the un-feminine.

The problem with our blogger is his moral code is not formed from God, but from men. I bet he has been instructed by the Church on how he should act per scripture, and upon acting that way he will find a worthy bride in the Church. However the Church and these “godly parents” have sinned against their brother and enslaved him in celibacy.

Here is the problem, the Church and christian parents of these girls he expects to court and marry are not leading these girls into relationships with these good men trying to be holy. They are letting them “find their own way” and offering forgiveness and acceptance based on a bastardized version of the “prodigal Son.”

In this story the “prodigal” does not beg and plead and receive a somewhat undeserved place in the Father’s house…no our female prodigals feign sorrow, are told they are special, are told they have not spent their entire inheritance and that they will get someone to “Man Up” for them, and to top it off the obedient son gets the lecture about keeping his penis in his pants.

Sure there were holy Alpha Males, and they were immediately paired off with the holy Alpha Females, but the rest of the tribe of single men was left lacking because the Church and these Goldy parents filed their betaized sons and carousel daughters.

I am just now (at 43 years old) realizing the psychological and socio-sexual whammy my church upbringing caused me in the wake of our song ministers daughter and one of our senior elder’s daughters coming up pregnant in, or right out of high school.

For the Church to bind good boys and young men in a sinful construct so they can deflect their sins as fathers and their daughters sins, is in my opinion “flog the money changers” sin. The temple needs to be mightly disrupted and these men driven out for short changing these men who are paying the price they set to sacrifice their sexual needs for a rigged game full of diseased lambs and crippled doves. Yeah, nobody’s getting the pure virgin lamb from these temple merchants.

I bet that on closer examination, those moral ties to deny himself sex are not rooted in his spiritual relationship with God, they are rooted in the sins of fathers who failed to control their daughters.

Cast off those sinful shackles that have been placed on you by sinful and guilty men and go get laid already. If your denial of your own sexual needs was of God the suffering would be cheerful, not fraught with anxiety.

I’m sorry to say that I think our blogger is already bound in sexual sin by another mans hands. A slave may be seen by his masters to be sinning as he claims his freedom in Christ to fill his needs, but is he really?

Was preached to, shamed and condemned with guilt about meeting my male sexual … need… on my own before I knew what sex with a woman was about. They made us pledge our sexual purity by making the “True Love Waits” vow every year at the youth church camp. I made that vow because I wanted to please God and hoping that staying pure would mean that I could give my future wife something precious (and she for me). My impression, reinforced by the churches, was that the armies of young women who made those pledges would be pure too.

(Little did I know…)

Even when I close my eyes today, I could see the stern look on the youth pastors’ face (note the plural) when they spoke about the Onanism sin of masturbation from the pulpit, wagging their fingers. But as a young male, I needed an outlet to meet the need and satiate that desire. Guilt and shame led me down the path of abstaining from masturbation for periods of time; the longest I went without was a year.

Oh, how I burned on the inside.

At 38 now, the desire now becomes a need that has to be met so that I can shoo it away and move on with life. I don’t know what it is like having sex with a woman until I marry one. Involuntary celibacy isn’t cool. It gnaws at me on the inside. It bugs me to no end about what I’ve been missing all these years. There was once when I feared how I’d never experience if I were to leave God’s good earth.

There is a missing component to this analysis. Some men have hormonal systems that don’t give them much of a sex drive. The lack of sex and low socio-sexual score and sexual market place value combine synergistically to keep the sex drive at the extreme low tail end of the curve.

So these men are not only rationalizing away their celibacy as a deliberate act, but are also accurately self reporting what us normals would terms a “lack” of sex drive.

Yeah it really opened my eyes when I heard that supposedly good Christian girls were having their escapades (preferably with boys outside the Churchysphere so as not to raise suspicion).

In the end the only people who actually took their chastity vows seriously were the guys.

I’m just so cynical now that when presented with a Christian woman for marriage potential, of the following thoughts that cross through my head:

1.) She kept her vow of chastity and is a virgin
2.) She’s had anal and threesomes and orgies since she was fifteen years old.

…I’m more likely to believe in the latter. I want to keep an open mind and not judge or slut-shame, but it’s hard to escape the image of damaged goods and sloppy seconds, particularly as a reward for someone who did as he was told and followed all the rules. Well since taking the red pill, no longer. So the woman’s bonding ability might be out of whack by now and that only means I have to work doubly hard on LTR game with the faint hope that she would one day treat me to the same debauchery she enjoyed in her youth, then all will be forgiven.

Or alternatively I imagine I’m some ugly troll goblin tasked with dishonoring some princess. Imagining myself as Tyrion Lannister would also suffice.

I also don’t subscribe to the belief that someone who’s been around the block will not be a good mother — caring for one’s own flesh and blood is as built-in an instinct as shit-tests. Besides, bearing a kid or two will eff up a woman’s body far more than years of carouselling — the factors that affect how hard a woman hits the Wall tend to be more of how much she sun-tanned, drank, smoked, or did drugs. Assuming no STI’s were contracted, the sex would actually be the healthiest activity for her.

The problem with Churchianity is it’s usually all or nothing with regards to the evils of sex. Yes looking at internet porn and masturbating is unhealthy — but it’s unhealthy when it consumes too much of your time and you flush your testicles every day, making you weak. A healthier rate would be to allow build-up for two-three weeks to recover your energy (not to mention sperm count) — this gap in time also corresponds to the greatest bonding between couples after a long break, compared to those who have been screwing each other incessantly day in and day out.

So in summary, for this particular red-pilled sorta-christian:

1.) porn and fapping is okay, just not everyday. As in everything else, in moderation. The point is not to let the dopamine inject too constant in that it’s diminishing returns and thus you seek more depraved content over time.
2.) knocked up is where I draw the line regarding a woman’s suitability. A baby will always be the star of her life, not you. The very least I can do is make sure it’s mine, and I can die happy knowing I fulfilled nature’s prerogative.
3.) partaking in prostitution does start to sound less sinful if you think of the institution as Tenga toys that happen to have live humans attached to them, as long as they’re not forced into the trade. It’s definitely less evil compared to mucking with friends and coworkers for casual sex, or worse, putting one’s energy and resources towards upkeep of a mistress or two.

In fact I think the shaming comes more out of shaming masculinity altogether. Power is the essence of masculinity…but having sex with many ladies doesn’t mean you are necessarily any more of a man than a guy who can bench 315 or rake in a cool mil.

20% of guys can bench 315, 20% of guys know how to make a mil, 20% of guys get most of the lady’s attention….but what percentage of men have this but have also conquered themselves?

My definition of masculinity is a man who has conquered all his fears, drives, and desires…and controls his inner world. Power and self-control. Players can be just as insecure as a sexless beta.

If the goal of Christianity is for humans to subvert their animal nature and achieve elevation, it seems to me that there is no longer any hope for Christian men. When the world around you has devolved into a sideshow of humanity’s basest instincts, the call for purity, nobility, chastity, etc. will fall on deaf ears.

I was lucky enough to go to a Private Christian College (sponsored/supported by a church that could be considered very conservative – we had bed checks every night – nuff said). They had a “no tolerance” policy about several things – and sex was one of them. It was a common occurrence for Bible Majors (those with the goal of becoming professional evangelists and teachers) to get caught having sex and “dismissed” from school. The last time I checked, every Christian I have ever met in my life, is also a human being. And that means they shit, piss, sweat and yes, they have a need & want to have sex.

I still struggle with “religions” (pick any of them) – but specifically those religions that promote a legalistic system rather than a spiritual system. It’s interesting that Christ was attempting to bring spiritualism to Judaism (which is a legalistic religion) – but instead has, the same human beings he was trying to enlighten have taken his message and made it more legalistic (and more exclusive). We can thank the sexually repressed Apostle Paul for the most part (which may believe may have been a closet homosexual – not that there’s anything wrong with that).

The “men don’t need sex” trope is common in Christian sex and marriage self-help books. The argument is that in the Christian worldview, sex is intended to be confined to marriage for the good of its participants and thus is holy (i.e. set apart, special). Sex should be experienced only in limited circumstances. And Christian boys and men are constantly hammered with: “No man ever died from not having sex.” It follows that sex is not a “need”.

I’m convinced it’s a feminine need to control sex that drives all this — the Christian forays into marriage and sex self-help and advice. The typical married Christian woman doesn’t seem to be all that hot for her husband; and so feels a need to exercise as much control over her sex life (and therefore HIS sex life) so she doesn’t have any more sex than the marriage contract requires (i.e. so she can keep to a minimum the times she needs to sex the pussified Christian beta she married).

I’m the one that quit having sex with my wife. That being said, she was hot-n-cold about it throughout our marriage (although she still states that it was me – which I take full ownership of what happened or didn’t happen). It’s been at least 4 years for me – but to tell you the truth, the more I learn, the more I read, the more I understand about all this Red Pill / The Way The World Really Works stuff – thinking about “women” just makes me mentally tired.

I’ve chosen to spend so much energy either in getting it or having it – that I allowed myself to “forget who I was” – I want to get back to me – and spend the last 30 or years pursing my passions, spending time on my life. I’ll probably come back to “pursing sex” (because I want sex, I just don’t want to work for it) – but my goal is for that pursuit to never supersede my “me” again.

To claim a righteousness for something that you already do not do begs of the “you have received your reward”. God created all things, called them good, and urged us to partake.

Under the old dietary laws the eating if the “clean” animals in the prescribed was would help prevent disease and foster bodily health, but a starving man is a fool to let himself die with an abundance of bacon to keep him alive and available for God’s use. Starving to death because you wont eat whatnis available and abstaining by fasting to draw closer to God are two different things

I see sex and marriage in these post-Christian times the same way. Partaking of the unclean in the most Balanced and God fearing way possible will keep you alive and functioning in a way that you are useful to his plan and not a consumed with a mess of “why am I not finding a woman to wife up that is pure holy”

Men who take the red pill and subscribe to Christian morals find themselves in a paradise of Bacon with no “clean and perfect foods” available. Enjoy the bacon in moderation and strive to make the food supply better as a market participant and not a raving protester in the streets. If sex is a marketplace, those outside the market never influence the products available, except to block theim by force.

The whole dynamic changes in marriage…before marriage you are supposed to keep your desires under control while displaying it covertly to her. Marriage it switches to where the man should get regular sex when he wants and she should submit to him. Christians seem to take the notion of celibacy and abstinence into marriage a little too seriously. You are only supposed to be that for a short time. In single life you are supposed to be that until marriage.

“All that Red Pill, PUA shit is for guy’s who obsess over sex. They only go to the lengths they do to get laid and never see the bigger picture. You don’t need sex you know, you wont die from not getting laid.”

…well i didn’t die.

But i can’t say i was a healthy individual, mentally, spiritually, emotionally or physically over those 12 years. I believe one or two of you might have read about that little period of my life.

It’s common quite everywhere actually. As Rollo stated, it’s espoused by Beta men whose own hamsters are running wild to justify their own station, by my ex-fwb who had the audacity to tell me that when i was an incel, but would avoid my direct challenge for her to stop having sex with her boyfriend, told by shrill feminists who view all male sexuality is rapey and an affirmation of ‘entitlement’ to womens bodies.. because as we all know, only women are allowed to be sexually expressive and vocalize their desires to be emancipated and empowered women having it all.

I sympathize with the problems many church goes face with the message they get from an institution not hip to redpill or evo.psych, but trust me, it’s not just limited there.

YOU DON’T NEED SEX… is only ever really espoused by 2 kinds of people.

Those who aren’t partaking thus rationalizing some higher purpose for the biological equivalent of going to the can

or

Those who are partaking in sex (even ugly feminists because.. vagina) and trying to shame those they find repugnant from attempting to mix their DNA into the gene pool.

No woman will ever tell RockerDrummerMcAlphaBadBoy that he doesn’t need sex. Only those jealous of him will.

Sex is the number one thing that would get the health of the population skyrocket. After you had amazing sex with a young model looking female you just feel charged. When I was younger I had the one disease and plague after the other. When I started to get laid everything just disappeared. When you look around you, you can tell who gets laid and who not. The ones that get laid look a bit “off”. Their energylevels are completely outbalanced. There is a whole biological reason for that. Cortisone levels rise higher, fat storage around the stomac increases. No more dopamine rushes… Stress increases. And before you know it you have cancer. This is also what happens if you look around in big cities and ghetto’s. Most poor immigrant males look absolutely shitty since they have no way of getting sex. Only the absolute alphas under them get laid. They die young.

This also counts -sadly enough- for the married beta-male in the suburban neighborhoods. For them, sex get unfulfilled after a while and it becomes routine. In fact they lie next to a female, but they have rarely sex with her. Healthy sex with different hot young females is the thing we need. It’s a vicious circle. They are the real doctors and keepers of health.

This also count for the female. For them sex with a alpha male is the thing they need. Why do the ugly woman look so shitty and fat? They only have sex with beta males and gammas. They miss “something”.

Subsidize brothels, increase the amount of females and most diseases will disappear. Every man will become high status. The word will save trillions and trillions of dollars.

About religion: you can only control unhappy people, and how do you make people unhappy? Take away what they need: sex, food, love, connection, shelter… Islam, christianity. it’s all bullshit.

I can understand where guys in general would get the notion that wanting sex is a terrible shame we should conceal. Just as you stated in the post about the average guy being scolded by chicks to not think with his dick.

As a guy who read your incel post and had to fight my own dusty room/throat lumps reading it because it felt so close to home, this post also made me sit up straight. When, and the better question is why, did we as men decide that giving up our desire for sex and being unashamed of our desires/lusts/needs become the modus operandi of life?

“When, and the better question is why, did we as men decide that giving up our desire for sex and being unashamed of our desires/lusts/needs become the modus operandi of life?”

Whenever birth control came into existance. Basically man was ashamed of his seed getting into a woman which is the highest form of disrespecting himself. Everything else that spiraled out of that as far as being ashamed came from that.

This is where I disagree – sex is part of the main course, not a dessert, not some treat at the end of the meal. Masculinity requires that a man have sex to be a Man, to fully embody masculinity.

It’s not some unfortunate coincidence that the same testosterone which makes men capable of strength, confidence, determination, perseverance, violence and aggression is also the primary motivating hormone for sex.

Men will build monuments to the sky and send fleets of ships to war for sex. It’s not some sweet-treat reward (as women would manipulate you to believe) at the end of the meal, sex is part of the meal of life.

“Masculinity requires that a man have sex to be a Man, to fully embody masculinity.”

Jesus never had sex…and I would love it if you told about how that guy didn’t fully embody masculinity.

A 15 year old pipsqueak can have sex with a woman…is he any more of a man than a celibate priest who willfully gave up his life to the Nazis so that a married man he never met could return to his family. That’s who my avatar is…Maximilian Kolbe.

Masculinity requires you to overcome all your fears…the greatest being death. The only reason why fear of woman has grown so large for many men is because of a society placing sex as the highest paragon of masculinity. It isn’t.

And the X factor is…sometimes you don’t know why a woman is having sex with you….is it because you are a man, revenge, she’s bored, she’s unhappy, jealous, etc. The only thing you conquered was the fear…which is the main course. Sex is the dessert.

Rollo, I wouldn’t have been offended if you had mentioned me by name and linked to the post (assuming that it was me, although I don’t see hot it couldn’t be) . In fact I have to admit to being somewhat honored that you read it.

[I was being courteous. Thanks for commenting.]

Nor do I disagree with much of what you state in your post. I am aware of the science concerning how important regular sex is to both male and female health. It is largely because of your regular resort to empirical evidence and science that I frequent your blog.

My problem is, as you have pointed out, finding a suitable mate. Sex isn’t the problem; I’ve always been in a position where I could get it (assuming I looked toward the lower SMV value women). After finding the Red Pill even that is no longer the case; I am fairly certain I could pull 6-8s without too much trouble (in fact I kn.

This “condition” of mine is self-imposed, based purely on my religious convictions. So in that sense I don’t “deserve” pity. I am more a voluntary celibate than an incel. I am only a celibate because I refuse to fornicate, and because I haven’t found a willing and worthy woman to be my wife yet.

Jesus never had sex…and I would love it if you told about how that guy didn’t fully embody masculinity.

Biblically speaking Jesus was / is God (the creator of all there is including sex), so it’s kind of redundant don’t you think? I think he gets a pass.

As far as your sexually active 15 y.o. is concerned, yes, he is. He’s had an experience that the majority of men in the history of the human race have had and your noble priest has not. Noble intent and self-sacrifice still don’t provide you with that masculine experience.

It is a debatable question as to whether or not gender is an essential feature of Christ, and the vast majority of the Christian tradition seems to think that it is not. The traditional “ideal” towards which mankind shall be redeemed into is that of angels, who are believed to be essentially genderless (“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matthew 22:30), and not forgetting the key verse of there being there “neither male of female” in Christ (Galatians 3:28),

Thus in a sense, the sizeable majority of the Church Fathers had believed that gender belongs essentially to “this-world” which distinction shall be transcended in the next, and thus masculinity is entangled up with all the entailment which that brings, conquest (both military and sexual), expansion, etc, the King David in the Old Testament being the typical alpha-male. And so in that sense, masculinity as a feature of this-world, would entail that the male sexuality would play a dominant part of masculinity.

But the advent of Christianity and its world negating creed did relegate the this-worldly relationships and order into second place compared to the concerns of the next world. The ideal of the passive martyr as the ideal sacrifice who remained silent in the face of abuse (i.e. following the example of Christ), is certainly nothing like the idea of sacrificing one’s life going down fighting in defence of one’s friends as in combat examples.

So I think like it or not, gender, and by extension, masculinity, is essentially a feature of this-world, an empirical phenomenon which isn’t really defined by theological concerns, and in so far as Christian theology is concerned, they are more interested in critiquing or at least limiting the concept of gender itself to this world and pointing to another world whereby gender itself would be transcended. Therefore as far the sexual component of masculinity is concerned, Christianity delimits that sexuality by delimiting gender and masculinity as a whole before the resurrection future, not by altering the meaning of masculinity itself.

This is why I think that Rollo is largely right in his empirical observations about gender and masculinity, etc. But he is right only in so far as he is operating within those parameters of empirical observation and ‘this-worldly’ scientific rationality. The Christian faith as such does not change empirical facts, it merely introduces a new factor which places all empirical reality into question, that is, the resurrection future. Of course, whether one accepts this new factor is wholly a matter of faith, for the resurrection future is not a matter of empirical observation but faith, and thus, Christianity leaves the world as it is, and changes only the heart and conscience, etc.

“As far as your sexually active 15 y.o. is concerned, yes, he is. He’s had an experience that the majority of men in the history of the human race have had and your noble priest has not. Noble intent and self-sacrifice still don’t provide you with that masculine experience.”

C’mon…the majority of men throughout the history of the human race have had sex. The percentage of men who go through their lives as a virgin are very small…even the blind squirrels get a nut once in a while. There are far less men who put their lives on the line and died for a noble cause.

Have you ever had noble intent or self-sacrifice…that is the thing that is more of the masculine experience than sex ever will be.

He was a true human, but whether or not to be human means to be gendered is another question altogether, and many Fathers did believe that at the resurrection, we would still be “human”, but yet genderless, like the angels in heaven, etc.

Jesus was a Man – in fact, during his day, there were many people that believed he was prophet, not a savior, not God. The study of the original language used to describe him is very interesting and could be interpreted as either meaning “I am God” or “I am of God” – as in “I am God’s Son” or “I am a son of God”. Regardless – we don’t know if Jesus of Nazareth did or didn’t have sex – there is no real record of him beyond the Four Gospels written approximately 40+ years after his death (much debate about when) and a few mentions by the Hebrew historian Josephus.

Actually, Paul was the first write about Jesus (about 20/25 years after his Jesus was crucified) in his “letters” to the young churches throughout Greece and other Roman territories. But, it is widely known that although Paul believed Jesus was a real “man”, born of a woman – he also believed that message was more important than the person.

So, the little history lesson aside – it’s merely conjecture about what Jesus did or didn’t do. He may have been the most celibate man to ever live on this earth OR he could have been the biggest bad boy (we all know what happens to our current TVangelists and Religitainers – they all havegroupies – and biology for women has changed that much).

Flame if you want – but unless you know of a first person account, written at the time it was happening – have video evidence or some other fact you want to share – all I can say is that “Jesus dying a virgin” is as much a leap of faith as “Jesus as Messiah bad boy” would be. There is no evidence to support either argument.

The only facts we have – Jesus was born, Jesus lived, Jesus died – everything else is faith based.

The evangelical church is a joke. It’s run by a bunch of alpha male leaders who have success, wealth, and hot wives because of their alphaness. Many of them were “prodigal sons” (AKA alpha bad boys) who did whatever the fuck they wanted to when they were young men. At some point they gave their lives to Jesus, planted churches, and became local celebrities. They love to tell young men how to live their lives, and mistakenly give Jesus the credit for all of their successes, which were obtained by being an aggressive alpha male, not through being a nice supplicating beta fag who prays and waits on Jesus to provide.

The story of my life, ages 17 to 27 as a devout Christian struggling to live a life of faith. I spent 10-15 hours every week serving, praying, involved in ministry etc because I wanted to please God. I wanted to be a sincere Christian; I wanted to live a life of faith. I bought into the lies that the church taught about women and about what they wanted. Initially, I purposely avoided dating to spend time on self growth and personal development. I naively thought that when I began to pursue women in the church, I would have success and find a wife. After all, I was the nice Christian guy everyone said women in the Church wanted. And of course, all of the members of my churches would talk up how great of a catch I am and how lucky a girl would be some day.

Of course, when I began to pursue women, I did not have any success. And I didn’t because I was a supplicating nice guy with no spine who spent ten to fifteen hours a week doing ministry instead of working out, pursuing hobbies, advanced degrees, etc. Meanwhile the alpha males who did whatever the hell they wanted to (minus the major obvious sins like getting drunk) married hot virgins.

Needless to say when I swallowed the red pill I quickly came to terms with the fact that I needed to take ownership of my life, and develop my masculinity. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I no longer find any use or value in Christianity or the church. When I realized that my success with women was solely dependent on my efforts, I also realized that success in all other areas of my life also depend on my own efforts. And so I ask, if it all depends on me, why do I need Jesus? Why do I need the joke of a church, where Christians are no different than non Christians, where self preservation reigns supreme, just like it does outside of the church? Why do I need to be a part of a group that is only concerned about my external performance and doesn’t give a shit about my emotional/psychological well being?

In sum, the red pill has taught me that I’m the only one who cares about my needs, and I’m the only one who can see my needs met. Prayer, reading the bible, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are not going to meet my needs. And the church doesn’t give two shits about my needs.

I did not deny that Jesus was a man before the resurrection, I am merely raising the question as to whether him being a man is an “essential” feature of his or merely something which he possessed while he remained in this world but which is transcended after he was resurrected. And therefore by extension, while being human entails being gendered in this world, it is a question whether we can be human without being gendered at the resurrection, and if not, this “delimits” the significance of the gender of Christ.

Needless to say when I swallowed the red pill I quickly came to terms with the fact that I needed to take ownership of my life, and develop my masculinity. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I no longer find any use or value in Christianity or the church. When I realized that my success with women was solely dependent on my efforts, I also realized that success in all other areas of my life also depend on my own efforts. And so I ask, if it all depends on me, why do I need Jesus? Why do I need the joke of a church, where Christians are no different than non Christians, where self preservation reigns supreme, just like it does outside of the church? Why do I need to be a part of a group that is only concerned about my external performance and doesn’t give a shit about my emotional/psychological well being?

In sum, the red pill has taught me that I’m the only one who cares about my needs, and I’m the only one who can see my needs met. Prayer, reading the bible, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are not going to meet my needs. And the church doesn’t give two shits about my needs.

I do not think that the Christian Gospel was proclaimed to “meet our needs”, rather it is the critique of our needs itself, or at least, the placing our needs within a delimited context. My mother who is not a believer used to say that even if you pray, God is not going to drop food from the sky, and she is right. After all, fasting which was once a central part of Christian spirituality, is precisely the exercise in the denial of our needs and learning to live without them for spiritual tasks. Thus, the Christian faith does not teach us how to “fulfill” our needs but calls us to believe in the resurrection future which places a limit on the importance of those needs”. Of course, this is entirely dependent on whether you actually believe in the resurrection or not, but the Christian faith in itself does not deal, at least not directly, with this worldly concerns and issues.

The Gospel does not teach us how to earn our keep or get a girl but what God requires of us and what he has done for us in Christ, etc. God gave us minds and brains and reason to earn our bread and handle our household (and by extension wives!), you do not need the Christian Gospel for that.

I wrote at greater length about this in a post of mine, responding the Sunshine Mary’s post about whether Christians should be concerned with sexual attraction where I explained the traditional Protestant doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms”, etc, that is, the Gospel is concerned with God’s “spiritual kingdom”, while the Law and our reason handles God’s temporal or worldly kingdom, etc.

So very true. Even with a woman that I tried dating needed to be “friends first” so as to completely misunderstand her own attraction cues (she told me she wanted me but…), older than me, gave out for free earlier what I had to pay for now. I couldn’t swear or basically be a man so as not to hurt her idea as to what a man was. Sex? The fact I even thought about it wasn’t right.

Yeah, next.

ROK’s post today about the fanfare for the American woman is spot on for this, too. Wearing revealing stuff is only to emasculate us.

“Of course, this is entirely dependent on whether you actually believe in the resurrection or not, but the Christian faith in itself does not deal, at least not directly, with this worldly concerns and issues.”

I understand this, and the message of the Gospel. The issue is that Christians are claiming this world doesn’t matter, yet their lives indicate that this world, and things of this world matter greatly to them. In sum, it’s double speak – “Jesus is enough!” – I hear this all the time from people who are have a high quality of life.

In sum, when we break it down, there is very little difference between how Christian’s are living their lives and how non Christians are living their lives.

“The Gospel does not teach us how to earn our keep or get a girl but what God requires of us and what he has done for us in Christ, etc. God gave us minds and brains and reason to earn our bread and handle our household (and by extension wives!), you do not need the Christian Gospel for that.”

Understood, but the red pill forces me to ask this question:

Who has the authority and the ability to determine what it is God asks of us? Who is right? Who has the truth? And to whom shall we listen?

It’s a mess, the grey has been exposed, that is what the Red Pill has done. The simple black and white answers that Christians give no longer suffice.

But I’ll wrap up with this…that Rollo and I aren’t too far apart in what we are trying to get across. In the world, sex is the highest experience of masculinity and when it comes to spirtually, overcoming all your fears is the highest experience of masculinity. I consider overcoming fears as a gold and conquering ladies as a silver.

So I’ll keep praying like everything depends on God and taking on the world like everything depends on me.

Who has the authority to determine what God asks? If you believe in one, you follow that religion’s book. Failure to do so means you cash in your membership card. You listen to those that follow it not the Churchians. You confuse Churchians with Christians. There is very little difference in the way Churchians live and the way the secular folk do, this is very true. Christians live much differently. See earl’s example. Refrains from premarital because it’s his beliefs. So do Donal and others (Cane?). Christians live their lives in accordance with their beliefs in the book, Churchians live life according to their FEELINGS on the book.

Example: I told my mother that women shouldn’t be Christian ministers and quoted 1 Timothy. “Times change”, she says. Great, now show me in the Bible where it says there’s an expiration date and where the verse is that says the meaning changes with the times. Silence.

JWs? Mormons? SDAs?
Of course, biblical interpretation is messy and difficult, and we have many theologies/denominations as a result, all of which are claiming some level of primacy and or superiority…

I believe there are more male atheists out there living better Christian lives than a lot of men in the church. However if women find a way to leave the church and pollute atheism…the men will come back to the church.

Holy crap! It looks like I just walked up into a Category 5 DERPicane!!! Man WANTS sex…..he doesn’t NEED sex. Sex is a physical and emotional act. And it’s been a harbinger of men ever since Eve bit that apple. From the physical perspective, the endorphine rush associated with climax can be had just as easily masturbating as it can doing it inside a hole. In addition, there are other things you can do to capture that release of endorphins as well i.e. high stress physical activity, heavy weight lifting…and even drugs although that might not be a good choice. You do not have to have intercourse with a woman to have the biological impact that climax provides.

As for the emotional aspect, chasing poon is a chore. For the alpha or thug loser POS out there, it comes naturally because losers is what women go for before they hit The Wall. Of course, after hitting The Wall and they can’t attract the losers to pump and dump them anymore, then they want the average joe….the guy who they didn’t see for twenty years….the walking ATM. For the longest time I waxed emotionally about my lack of success with the opposite sex. Now that’s not to say I haven’t gotten laid. I have. Just not with any frequency. But realizing that now, and acting on it instead of complaining about it, has allowed me to control my own life and not let an event control me.

It’s funny Scott said celibate MGTOW are the bottom of the totem pole. Well I submit that not chasing the almighty poon has allowed me to focus on more important things in my life. I’m working towards the CCIE certification with Cisco….a higher monetary value and self satisfaction than the automaton act of pluggin my rod in a hole somewhere. It’s allowed me to focus on the K2 of the piano concerto repertoire(the Rach 3), the money I no longer waste on chasing poon has allowed me to purchase a sports car that I always wanted, and will allow me to buy that Steinway that I’ve wanted all my life. Do you think Einstein would have been as great a contributor to science if he was always focused on chasing poon? Do you think the wright brothers would have been as integral a force in modern aviation if they were focused on chasing poon? speaking of the wright brothers, having all that money has also allowed me to take up flying lessons.

Men who don’t get sex are going to be shamed by the alpha/PUA/thug loser pieces of dirt. Men who avoid sex because they know that women are pure evil will be shamed by the fascist feminist machine. But woe be the society where enough men wake up on day and realize that they don’t HAVE TO HAVE sex.

Doesn’t matter. If you believe and follow the tenets of the faith, you live that way. If you play fast and loose with them, you hand in the membership card. Basic Christianity involves living a certain way. A lot of “Christians” don’t live the way they profess. PIck one, follow the tenets, go from there. If you believe Orthodoxy (Rus/Grk/etc.) is the way you get closer to God, then go that way and that’s the authority of which you follow. If Calvinism, then their interpretation of God is the one you follow. God is fluid in that way. It doesn’t require messy exegesis, it requires that faith’s exegesis.

Have you ever had noble intent or self-sacrifice…that is the thing that is more of the masculine experience than sex ever will be.

Yes, and I’ve had sex too. Who’s had a more complete masculine human existence thus far? You’re qualifying masculinity with high-order morality and noble purpose – I’m sure that’s part of the meal you described, but it’s not everything that’s on the plate so to speak.

There’s no end to the white knights who believe in the virtue of their own noble sacrifices, would you call them great examples of masculinity?

You’re debating context, I’m saying sex is an integral part of a total masculine life experience.

I understand this, and the message of the Gospel. The issue is that Christians are claiming this world doesn’t matter, yet their lives indicate that this world, and things of this world matter greatly to them. In sum, it’s double speak – “Jesus is enough!” – I hear this all the time from people who are have a high quality of life.

In sum, when we break it down, there is very little difference between how Christian’s are living their lives and how non Christians are living their lives.

I think whenever we hear Churchians proclaim that “Jesus is enough”, we need to ask, “enough for what?” Is Jesus “enough” for putting food on the table? Is Jesus “enough” for helping us solve differential equations? Of course not. Jesus is “enough” for salvation, it is enough to put our faith in Jesus to be saved, to be pleasing to God, to fulfil the will of God, etc. But to say that “Jesus is enough” for everything is either being disingenuous or evasive.

Worldly things exists for worldly ends, therein lies both their meaning and their limitation. Earning money exists to maintain a household, feeding oneself and one’s family, securing one’s chilldren financial future etc, in that sense, worldly things “matter” in the limited sense of it matters for other worldly things, etc. But when worldly things “break out” of their limits, like attempting to define ourselves and our worth, i.e. hoarding money for the sake of it, or to foster a sense of self-importance etc, that’s when it becomes idolatry and the worldly things have transgressed into the spiritual realm.

Thus, the use of Game and other concepts and tools of the manosphere are useful for worldly ends, that is, securing a wife and keeping her, maintaining peace in the household, etc, but therein must lie their limitations and their purpose. It is one thing to learn “alpha” skills to acquire the things of this world, it is another thing to let it exhaustively define who you are.

I understand that there are many Christians who are annoyingly well off, successful while posing a faux humility about it. But even Christ has already dealt with this in Matthew 23:2-3,

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Hypocrites have always existed in the congregation of God’s people from the time of Christ, but Christ admonishes us to hear and observe their correct teachings, but not follow their hypocritical examples.

Who has the authority and the ability to determine what it is God asks of us? Who is right? Who has the truth? And to whom shall we listen?

It is honestly impossible to answer this question in the abstract. As a Protestant I could of course say the Holy Writ, but that is effectively meaningless. Ultimately I could only say that I could tell you what I believe to be true, and it is up to you to accept it. But I would be happy to discuss this elsewhere as we are straying very very far away from the original post.

I think some people are jaded and don’t have sex for that reason. It’s not necessarily because their SMV is too low and they’re in denial. It’s that they kind of don’t care. They really don’t see the value in sex and marriage, or they see the value but it doesn’t seem to rise beyond a threshold that requires action. That’s me to some extent. I’m very religious and very skeptical of what a woman would contribute to my life, other than sex. So it’s kind of a trade-off. As a Catholic, sex comes with a lot of burdens and responsibilites, and I’m not quite convinced yet that the benefits are worth the burdens. I can see why men want sex; I can’t quite see why they want marriage. Since I want to see this, maybe I’ll someday be able to talk myself into it or learn that marriage committment is worth sex. In the meantime, I’ve finally been able to give up jacking off and porn. So I’m curious how things will go from here.

“In sum, the red pill has taught me that I’m the only one who cares about my needs, and I’m the only one who can see my needs met. Prayer, reading the bible, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are not going to meet my needs. And the church doesn’t give two shits about my needs.”

@SDL…I assume you do not believe in “sex without marriage” – and the I can only assume you believe that because “sex (with anyone other than your wife) is a sin”. No judgments here, just making that assumption from what you wrote. And I’m going to assume that you believe masturbation is a sin (just from the statement of you have given it up) – otherwise why would give it up?

@ThePatriotBlogPost…I agree with you, I personally have about 5 more years before I get all my money back – and quit supporting my STBXW – and then all my money can go to supporting my pursuits and those of my kids, without having to fund her life. So, although sex would be great and I got my share during my single years – right now, I’ve got no energy for it. In fact, I’ve turned it down about three times (or at least didn’t pursue it) in the past month. Not quite at the @MarkMinter stage – Pump, Dump, Next.

“a noble sacrifice enhances your masculinity…irregardless if you get poon or not.”

now that right there is a level of self-awareness and intelligence that the poon chasers and men who center their life around poon will never be able to achieve!
”
True, but there’s a vast difference between living a life as a pussy chaser/beggar and living a life where you have sex on a regular satiated basis and living a life without doing what you were biologically created to do.

True exceptions to the side such as Monks and Masichists.. most men if given the choice would rather be having sex than not having sex, regardless of the means of attaining it (fwb,ons,ltr,marriage,etc) or who they’re having it with (fat,thin,hb10,hb1,goddess,troll,feminist..uggg no wait.. )

I reached a point in my life that after my marriage i went practically 2 yrs without sex, because i didn’t want to sleep with garbage. This didn’t mean i was enjoying a life without sex, it means i tolerated it while looking for the right kind of woman i was filtering for. i wasn’t ‘chasing’ poon or dragging my life down in sole search for pussy, since i was enriching my life with inner game, working out and all that other stuff.. but if a good situation presented itself, i wouldn’t throw it didn’t fit the really high criteria i set for looking for the LTR i wanted.

Rollo’s point that sex is a part of being a whole and complete man is something i fully endorse. I was on the other side of that equation, and i can tell you while i didn’t need sex to physically live like i need oxygen… i certainly did not feel like a man. And i certainly struggled every day trying to justify sticking around for another day to endure.

As I mentioned on another blog, I think different guys have different levels of sexual energy or “drive.” I’m a 43-yo virgin. When I was young person, I was short, ugly, poor, and perfectly comfortably with my solitary geeky pursuits and high standards, so none of the women in my league were ever attractive enough for me and, so far as SMV went, I couldn’t raise my own SMV to pull what I would have wanted. When I accepted this in my early 30s, it was the most liberating thing that’s ever happened to me since I dumped religion in my teens. My sexlessness didn’t really bother me as much as the same appears to have bothered others. I was happy with success in other areas of life. Good luck to all of you and try not to dwell on past negatives!

Is it your position that persons specifically need sexual activity with other persons? Or does masturbation constitute a form of “sex”? Or does masturbation just constitute a form of palliation that can lessen some of the burdens of going without sex but can never provide the remedy that sex with other persons supposedly provides?

I grew up in Texas. And illegal aliens were as common as sunshine down here and we thought nothing of it. Remember this was 40 or 50 years ago. They showed up in my elementary school in the first grade wearing khaki pants, black Pachuco shoes, and white tee shirts because that was all their parents could afford. The couldn’t speak a word of English and the school put them in with the Mexican teachers. They went to a separate reading group and usually by third grade they were speaking English fairly well. They still spoke Spanish amongst themselves.

The were integrated into all aspects of my life. My school was right outside an Air Force base and my father was in the military. The little league baseball was on the base and sponsored by the military. But any kid that went to that elementary school could play on the teams. So those Mexican kids were on our teams. My team was about 1/3 Latino. The teams were named after major league teams and we all had official uniforms saying Tigers, Dodgers, Giants, and yes, my team, the Yankees.

The parents of the Mexican kids couldn’t get on the base but the diamonds were right by the front gate. So they would let the kids off and the front gate right in front the security police. This 57 Chevy would pull up with dice handing from the front mirror and 5 little kids would get out, all wearing uniforms that said “Yankees”.

At the first day of practice, our coach, Tsgt Bill Coley from Alabama (We didn’t call him coach, we called him Tech Sergeant), had tried out 3 white kids at pitcher and what he learned was two things, one the backstop wasn’t high enough, and two, not a single car in the parking lot was safe.

The Mexican kids started buzzing in Spanish and then pushed this fat kid out, Jesse.

They said “Tech Sergeant, Jesse can pitch.”

So the coach waved Jesse over and handed him the ball and said “Now, Jesse, try not kill anybody, ya hear?”

Jesse goes into this strange fat Mexican kid windup and just rips the ball across the plate. They catcher jumps up, yanks his hand out of the mitt and starts fanning it.

The coach said “Well two things here, looks like we need a little more padding in that mitt and it looks like Jesse is our pitcher.”

So if you would have gone back in a time machine to back then and used all that language of today about illegals like “Invaders”,

I would have said “That’s no invader. That’s Jesse, he’s our pitcher.”

Jesse grew up, literally grew out more like it, to be a 5’8″ 240 pound lineman on our football team. Keep in mind that in those days, Bob Lilly was the starting defensive tackle for the Dallas Cowboys and he weighed less than Jesse.

We always had a Monday film session where we watched the game on film from the previous Friday. The coach stopped the film and said “I want ya’ll to watch this pursuit technique by 74 (Jesse). He took a penlight and sort of waved it over where Jesse was lined up.

Every team back then in Texas ran the Wishbone offense with triple option veer. Every team. Jesse was lined up on the left side at defensive tackle. If he wasn’t being optioned then that meant the play was going to the opposite side and he was to pursue laterally down the line. He wasn’t particularly fast for the first 10 yards but once he got going, he was as fast as anybody.

The coach mimicked a train starting “Choo … Choo… Choo” then got faster as Jesse picked up speed “Choo choo choo”, then changed to a locomotive going full out. The other team was going through the option sequence and pitched to the back who took the pitch, ran wide and then cut up the field with tons of daylight in front of him. He was on the sideline, two yards past the line of scrimmage and Jesse arrived. You don’t stop something that takes 10 yards to get going real quick and Jesse took out the back, the opposing head coach, two other players and the Gatorade 10 yards out of bounds. The room of players watching the film went wild.

So say what you want, but the laws were different back and then society was different back then. This ain’t a comment about immigration, it’s a comment about men.

I had this job during the summer while I was in college doing construction. I had this van I used. I took it home with me and in the morning my job was to go and pick up the “hands” over in East Austin in the barrio. There was a local Mexican guy that spoke English and all the “hands: would come over there to his house and I would pick them up. The local would introduce them as they got in the van, “This is my cousin Louis, my other cousin Arthur, my uncle Hector, and my cousin Juan.”

Always they were some kind of cousin or uncle.

One day one of cousin’s got a better job and this new “cousin” showed up for work that day. I gathered from the others sometime during the day that he had traveled from Oaxaca, in the very south of Mexican near the border with El Salvador. He had traveled by bus for a while till Mexico City then on top of a train to somewhere near the border, came across the Rio Grande by swimming, then in the back of a cattle truck to Austin

As part of the pay they got food. These fat Mexican women would come around in a Chevy Impala and they had these giant Igloo coolers that had these tacos in them. Breakfast tacos in the morning, egg and bacon, egg and potato, egg and bean, and then Carne Guisada, Barbacoa (which I think is some goat parts), Carnitas, Cabrito (a crowd favorite), and my favorite, Spanish rice with Chicken, all stuffed with filling in a homemade flour tortilla. There was homemade salsa in a syrup dispenser like the kind at Pancake House. And these tacos were the treat of the day. Restaurants would be green with envy over these tacos. And to give you a clue of how good they were, those fat Mexican women looked like the Jesse I described above. I am sure they were about one Carnita away from 240.

And one of the joys of my job, was getting guys like that guy that had traveled through hell, slept the night before under a bridge, and had probably not eaten in days, not just food, but that food from those fat fat Mexican women.

Then at night I went through this pay ceremony where I paid them all in cash. I had a fistful of twenties and this pad of forms. I would write their name, then ask their Social Security Number. They would look at me and say something like “quatro” and I would write down a 4 and then look at them. And they would say “siete” and I would write down a 7 and as long I kept looking at them, they would spit a number until I got 9 I needed, then I would give them $40 and go to the next guy. And for some of them, this was the first money they ever made in the United States. And the first time they had money in their pocket in a while.

Before you start judging me, remember this was a time that the highway patrol would pull over a truck with 10 Mexicans in the back that were obviously “hands” and lecture the driver about his tires. This was Texas and it was as much a part of our culture as cowboy boots.

And as a human being, it gave me enormous gratification to ease the suffering of another man. Especially when it was just a matter of timing between this “hand” and Jesse, my pitcher and defensive end. Geopolitics is somebody else’s problem. I was a college kid doing a summer job.

So the next day I went back to pick these “hands’ up for work. The new guy got in the van.

I asked “What did you do last night?”

The question was translated, spanish spanish spanish then the answer, spanish.

The answer came back, “He got a hooker”

I asked “And how much was this hooker”

Spanish spanish spanish spanish

“25 dollars”.

I said “Let me get this straight. You traveled across Mexico and Texas for four weeks, the last part without food, and I gave you 40 dollars and you spent 25 dollars of it on a hooker”

All joking aside, I thought I knew, but I never *really* knew how important sex is to men. I so want to see donalgraeme (and other men like him) with someone worthy. The only caution I’d make is, don’t set your sights at an unattainable level. I know how hard it is to find people. And I think when you’ve come this far down the rabbit hole, the only people you’d even consider are people from this world. Just keep putting your thoughts and ideas out there. Its man’s modern mating call. Are you prepared to do a nationwide search? Spend five years actively looking for this ideal woman? Because that seems to be about what it entails. Let me know if there is anything at all I can do for you.

“Booty is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of booty in an other dimension. There are no chicks willing to blow themselves up for a penis.”
– Joe Rogan

…who need to validate their worldview through pushing nonsense on well-meaning males:

“To my itty bitty striving lower betas who worship me… I grew into my manhood via youtube videos, so take that. I’ll bet you 5 big fat fucking dollars that I can become a boss within a year on any non-PUA site, including the holies of holies, Heartiste, RationalMale, et al, by running off all commenters who dare to cross me, via the injection of such a level of negativity to the discussion that no sane man will tolerate my feminine presence, and the rest of the commentariat would prefer to cower rather than address my Cathedralist attitude toward difference of opinion with my own. I guarantee that both Heariste and RM will cave to my frame. In fact, I’ll go you one further and bet you double my $5—yes, $10—that I can get the proprietors themselves to go along with my schtick, because, you see, I give them social proof, which they crave. I’ve only one or two frustrating dissenters left, and then you owe me $5, my weekend’s beer following sucka. Be damned the men who want truth over tactics. AND, rather than engage a legitimate discussion I’ll SELF-VALIDATE my own growth in doing so, such that you will love me even more. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta. Oops, let me drop some preemptive socially manipulative tactic on the community – agree with me not and you are simply unenlightened, a pussy who is too afraid to imbibe this video… you obviously haven’t internalized the youtube of RSD… so sorry for you.

Everyone does see that the punk’s expression of himself here in this territory is his personal attempt to gain validation for the place where he is in his personal progress. You all get that. If the resident punk was merely stretching his own personal boundaries to grow as a being, I would have no problem with that. But you all do get the fact that he’s putting YOU down into order to elevate his own self esteem. You all get that. You do see how this all works.

Fuck it, ok, fine, for the noobs: grinding your blade against the MS as a means to test your own progress is welcomed… Leading others down your path, to bolster your own self-worth, is pretty fucking low. Enjoy your own self-worth, and let others enjoy theirs’. Let everyone follow their own path, without need to validate your own faux path, punk. I’m happy to meet you IN PERSON to determine whether or not my use of “punk” was justified or not, punk bitch. Seriously, let’s meet in person and hear you talk shit. Seriously. I beg. Meet me in person, punk. Let’s talk.

Does anyone find it peculiar that a male would base his entire identity on youtube videos? Do YOU base your entire identity on youtube videos? Does this strike any of you as odd? Are the proprietors really that willing to be PUNKED? Really?

You all get the fact that he’s playing games with you as the “Cathedral.” Best wishes to you, douche, and please, sincerely, talk your shit, not from behind a keyboard, but to my face. I lust for that moment. Punk, bitch.

Not true that men need it more? But hey, isn’t it infinitely far easier for women to satiate the need, no?

“There are women who are 30+ who are still virgins too.”

Classic example of NAWALT? So what’s wrong with them? Low sex drive? “True Love Waits”? “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”? Pastor(s) said so? Flaked / rejected decent men who were so boring that they couldn’t give her the tingles? Career first? The many toys she keeps in her drawer and in her office?

Why should men get along with women who pissed on them when they were sincere about being their mate?

Mark Manson of Postmasculine said in an email I just received “This past month has been a bit unpredictable for me. Earlier this week I announced
that I will be writing two books instead of one (the one I’m currently working on) and that I’ll be changing Postmasculine to become gender neutral.”

Did I just read that right? I mean I really like his stuff and thought his move out of strictly PUA was probably the right move, but to become “GENDER NEUTRAL” on a site that has the word “masculine” in it?

First we have Athol pandering to the ladies (I understand a bit of pandering to his wife, but to all women, it’s a bit much).

And now, Mark Manson?

Rollo, when are you going to go Gender Neutral – be a bit more mainstream, quit worrying so much about helping Men and just be about helping all Humans?

Rollo, while you go into the psychological reasons why men justify not having sex, it doesn’t really deal with the fundamental question: ‘Does a man need to have sex? If he does, then how much/often?’

The two perspectives that answer that question usually fall into one of two camps:
– The Kinsey camp (hedonism is normal.)
– The Christain camp (asceiticism is normal.)
And I frankly don’t trust either of them. Kinsey was a sexual deviant who twisted the data in his studies. And Christians are too eager to cling to the book instead of testing whether it’s claims are true or not. Neither of them seem any good to me. So do you know of any studies which have shown the effects of celibacy on the brain, compared to the effects of sexual-hedonism on the brain?

“I’ll just respond by saying the Rational Male book will be published in July and it will not be gender neutral.” You just called your book an “it”! I propose your book from now on be referred to as “he.” :)

Read it. Personally I agree with it. And although I had not specifically termed my current phase as “stockpiling gold” – I think that’s probably as close to it as any phrase. I have had my notches; I have had my wife (soon to be ex-wife); I have had my children (soon to be all 18+; but I didn’t necessarily finish my journey from a “gold” perspective – got close – but like Icarus, lots of effort but ultimately failed.

I believe sex is important, just not the MOST important aspect of being a Man.

Once again, somewhat of a hijack here – because I have a question for you to ponder and potentially create a post out of it for further explanation…

Is the Red Pill only for Men? Do women really need to take it?

Curious what your thoughts are on the subject – I’ve been thinking about it on and off since discovering the Manosphere. Appreciate your and any one else’s feedback. (My opinion that like Viagra, the Red Pill has the greatest affect on Men and is probably detrimental to women).

It’s funny that the men who will say “I need sex!” are the first to deny that they need a woman. You can’t have one without the other. It’s akin to saying you can’t do without the internet, but you don’t need a computer.

But as you may become sad over a man who says he has never had sex, I lament the man that has let his mind, body, and (dare I say) soul become controlled by a desire for sex, living life just looking for the next relief.

Saying sex is a ‘need’ does not make it so. On a base level, it is a natural craving or desire that has its purposes (procreation/connection). But like any craving, it can manifest itself into an unhealthy desire, one that causes you to believe that it is in fact a ‘need.’

Nor will I deny the strength of such desire. You noted Freud’s take on energy. There is also Hill’s concept of sexual transmutation. According to Hill, sex desire is responsible for the perpetuation of mankind as well as bringing the ordinary into the extraordinary. However, it is the desire itself, and not the physical act of intercourse/release, that is responsible. Otherwise, compare with “Sex & Culture” by Unwin, who posits that a sexually promiscuous society results in “wasted” energy and ultimately the decline of the civilization.

I understand the post is targeted towards those who make excuses for not having sex due to their inability. But approaching it by saying “Yes, you do” instead of exposing their duplicitous statement does not bolster your point when no biological (only psychological) sources are used to buttress your claim that sex is in fact a need.

> I think most of Christianity’s history would agree with you
> that sex is a bodily or worldly need, and paradoxically
> because they agree with that, thinks that it should be
> secondary in the Christian’s life, to be overcome by
> the human will which is locus of the Christian’s life.

Not true.

Willpower is useful to anyone devout and moral. Just like marching in rows is useful during Boot Camp.

But the goal of Christian life is to have your inner self changed by God in a way that makes willpower obsolete. Just like during actual combat an army squad does something better than marching in rows.